Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
STATION
CNN 4
CNNW 4
KQED (PBS) 4
KRCB (PBS) 4
CSPAN2 3
CSPAN 2
WETA 2
WJZ (CBS) 2
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 33
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)
were already in hezbollah's hands. in other words, that this was not a syrian army convoy taking the weapons to hezbollah, the militant shiite group in lebanon, but hezbollah already had possession of them. if that turns out to be the case, it says a lot about hezbollah's actions and activities in syria right now. >> ifill: so a u.s. official has confirmed this to you. the syrian state television has said this happened. but israel's been awfully mum on this. what is -- why are they being so quiet about it? >> well, gwen, there's no percentage in it for israel to confirm this. first of all, the confirm that they violated syrian airspace. secondly they don't want to become the issue. in other words, they wanted to prevent these weapons from getting into hezbollah's hands in lebanon. but they certainly didn't want to do it in the a way or crow in a way that either syria feels it has to respond or hezbollah feels it has to respond. as one analyst said to me, if it was intended to send a message also to the two parties that, look, don't try transferring any chemical weapons or anythin
it actually occurred fairly near damascus but that the missiles or missile parts were already in hezbollah's hands. in other words that this was not a syrian army convoy taking the weapons to hezbollah, the militant shiite group in lebanon, but hezbollah already had possession of them. if that turns out to be the case, it says a lot about hezbollah's actions and activities in syria right now. >> ifill: so a u.s. official has confirmed this to you. the syrian state television has said this happened. but israel's been awfully mum on this. what is -- why are they being so quiet about it? >> well gwen, there's no percentage in it for israel to confirm this. first of all the confirm that they violated syrian airspace. secondly they don't want to become the issue. in other words, they wanted to prevent these weapons from getting into hezbollah's hands in lebanon. but they certainly didn't want to do it in the a way or crow in a way that either syria feels it has to respond or hezbollah feels it has to respond. as one analyst said to me if it was intended to send a message also to the two parties
on the bad guys so to speak trying to take over. the iranians trying to getn. hezbollah wonts to have their share. >> warner: intelligence minister says that israel and its allies are most concerned that if assad goes down, he may transfer some of syria's chemical arsenal to his ally hezbollah in lebanon. >> i don't want to go into them. one is that they move it to lebanon and to hezbollah and syria and then to lebanon. >> warner: the militant group hezbollah syria's proxy in neighboring lebanon fought israel to a surprising draw in 2006. it is now believed to have missiles including some supplied by syria that could strike tel aviv. that city has come under such fire before. and israelis are prepared. every apartment and every house in this middle class neighborhood contains a safe room where the family can take refuge in the case of attack. that's been required of every dwelling built here in the last 20 years, ever since saddam hussein aimed missiles at israel during the first gulf war. this man owns a company called i am protected. he installs, upgrades and retrofits residential s
. they were transporting surface to air missile to the ally, hezbollah. we are hearing from iran and it issues a vague threat to retaliate over this attack. here to walk us through, i want you to talk to me about iran, lebanon, the relationship between the countries and who has the most to gain and lose. >> happy to talk. first, listen to what the un secretary has to say. they say at this time he doesn't have details of the reported incident and not in a position to verify what happened. that's part of the problem. we don't know what happened here. we know there was an israeli strike. the syrians are saying it was corrected at the research facility that everybody knows is just along damascus here. everybody knows that it was also storage depot for weapons. beyond that, if they were bound for hezbollah, they came from iran. the iranian arms, were they owned by hezbollah and scored in syria? we don't know. that's one factor that has got to be considered here. in any event the israelis don't want them in possession of the more advanced surface to air missiles that can threaten air action by the i
a look at the map there, just a reminder, lebanon is the home of hezbollah, a terrorist organization supported by iran. also supported by iran is the assad government of syria. now iran's deputy foreign minister is quoted saying today, israel's airstrike inside syria will have significant implications for tel aviv. no specifics of course. with us, michael singh, managing director of the washington institute for near east policy and former director of national security affairs. michael as we mentioned developments in the last 24, 48 hours. how do you see the scenario playing out? what are you watching for next? >> hi, jenna. israel hasn't confirmed doing anything. to the extent israel did something we're not exactly sure what it did. it appears israel destroyed some sophisticated weaponry going from syria to hezbollah and probably originated with iran. that is tends to be how the supply chain works. important to remember this sort of action by israel when it undertakes it is not unprecedented. it is intended to sort of prevent a bigger and bloodier conflict down the road by keeping so
to hezbollah in lebanon. sara sidener joins us as well as fran townsend from new york. we have reports from the united states and reports from syria. is this the same or separate attacks? >> reporter: that's the thing that needed to be sorted today. we have heard from a u.s. official indeed there was just one attack. they say israeli planes did fly over and ended up hitting an area. the question is -- what is the difference? was it a convoy that was hit that had pieces and parts of missiles or was it this research facility that syria says the israelis hit that was damaged? there is confusion over what was hit or perhaps if it was one and the same incident. what we know from senior intelligence officials who have now left the intelligence agencies here in israel and we have talked to a few of them is that this particular research facility has been a facility that they know has been part of a chain of facilities that syria runs that have been trying to create unconventional weaponry. we are talking chemical weapons. however we are told this particular facility didn't have chemical weapons in
the events have brought hezbollah into our sights for the first time, probably strengthened the iranian hand. >> if you want to live the life of policy failures by all means get involved in the middle east. >> i believe that the reagan policy in the middle east wasted the power of american leadership and diplomacy. >> much of the problems that we have till this day in the region were born out of policies that either were you the into place during reagan or were continued during the reagan years. >> that was a clip from the documentary series, the reagan presidency coming to pbs. with us now the filmmaker behind the project, chip duncan. howard dean, katty kay all back with us. that's a fascinating introduction to a documentary, mobilely focused on reagan's foreign policy as it pertains to the soviet union and prevailing a 50-year cold war. >> yeah, in this case, it was all based on a comment from george schulze during our interview with schulze who said, and i'm more or less quoting that he felt that the reagan administration didn't make a lot of accomplishments in the middle east but at lea
. it was suspected of sophisticated russian made antiair-craft missiles on the way to hezbollah fighters. sirria, however, claims that israeli jets hit a research facility outside damascus, killing two people. israeli officials refused to comment. on sunday, israeli vice premier raised the possibility of this scenario. >> it means that chemical weapons if it will move to the end of the -- [ inaudible ] it would change dramatically the balance of power in the middle east. this is something that most of the world cannot tolerate. >> in a cautionary move they deployed the iron dome rocket defense system to the northern boarder to prevent an attack. >> recent weeks, the u.s. and israeli officials had meetings to discuss chemical weapons stock pile. they believe it's essential to the long-term survival. >> you mention that they said the attack is not on a convoy but a research facility near damascus. why would they make that claim? >> syrian tv reported in the past that syrian rebels attacked the military facility believed to be a chemical weapons plant. claiming that they launched the attack they ti
that there are situations going on right now between syria and lebanon, particularly hezbollah, that are quite disturbing to israel. over the past few years they have information that says that syria has been handing over, transferring, if you will, scud missiles. the significance of scud missiles is that they can carry chemical weapons warheads. there is a lot seems to be going on behind the scenes, but indeed a u.s. official says they can confirm there was an israeli air strike on the syrian/lebanon border. israel is not commenting on that information right now. >> okay, sara sidner, when you get more information on the strike, on the syrian/lebanon border, we'll bring you back up. sara sidner, my thanks to you from israel. we'll be right back. so...how'd it go? well, dad, i spent my childhood living with monks learning the art of dealmaking. you've mastered monkey-style kung fu? no. priceline is different now. you don't even have to bid. master hahn taught you all that? oh, and he says to say (translated from cantonese) "you still owe him five bucks." your accent needs a little work. i've got a nice l
hagel will testify that the militant group hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and that military options should be on the table when it comes to iran. not very controversial, unless you consider what he said in the past. chuck hagel's past is about to come roaring back at him. >> good morning. >> reporter: how he's voted. what he's said. >> he has insisted that the israelis negotiate with hamas, a terrorist organization. >> reporter: one of the first questions could be will you support israel? recently hagel promised he would, saying his record has been distorted. but he'll have to explain what he said before his nomination. >> reference to a "jewish lobby" which i don't believe exists. >> reporter: he will be asked what he meant and why he refused to sign an order designating hezbollah as a terrorist organization. >> i cannot support a nominee for defense secretary who thinks we should be tougher on israel and more lenient on iran. >> reporter: which brings up another question, can you be tough on iran? senators are being barraged by advertising, questioning how effective hagel
. israeli jets hit a convoy of trucks believed to be sheupgz weapons to hezbollah. the trucks allegedly filled with russian-made missiles. in a few hours president obama's job council could get the pink slip. it is set to expire today. it's only met four times since it was create twaod years ago. the white house defends the council. it says the president took action on 33 out of 35 council recommendations. >> patty andrews, the last survivor of the three singing andrews sisters, has died. ♪ >> boogie woogie bugle boy became an anthem. the siblings from minnesota broke up in 1963 when patty went solo. patty andrews was 94 years old. >>steve: a lot of good music. >> now i think we know why the president of the united states in his second inaugural didn't talk about the economic progress this country is making. because there isn't any. the fourth quarter g.d.p. gross domestic product number came out yesterday and it is the worst since the recession ended in 2009. the economy shrank for the first time. it fell at a .1% annual rate. that is not good. it's largely driven by big cuts in defe
strong position, iran, hamas, hezbollah, terrorists. that is why "the washington post" described your views near the fringe of the senate. that raises questions about you suitability to serve as the secretary of defense. in my view, having a secretary of defense who is not viewed as supporting credible strong military action makes it more likely that the united states will be drawn into military conflict. i think that would be an unfortunate outcome. thank you. >> thank you, senator cruz. that ends the second round. if you want an opportunity to comment on that, if not i will ask you other questions. in reaction to one of the things that you said, it doesn't matter what i believe -- it does matter. i think what you were pointing out that unfortunately, is what the president believes. i think that is what you were aiming at. >> that is exactly what i was aiming at and that is what i meant to say. thank you. >> i'm going to ask you the standard questions that i've delayed and these are just questions that we ask of every nominee. would you adhere the applications in regard to conflicts
talks with the iranian regime not to mention direct talks with hamas, hezbollah and syria as well. he's pressed that such talks should proceed without the backing gained from other more forceful credible options. this approach is far too weak to be effective and reveals a person less committed to results than this critical moment demands. the second track of the comprehensive search for a solution is sanctions. i have supported all legislative efforts to create and impose both unilateral and multilateral sanctions on iran. leveraging similar commitments from our friends have been possible in pursuing sanctions when necessary. it has been limited to impose sanctions that arguably stiffened the spine of the international community and made increasingly harsh multilateral regimes possible. senator hagel does not see it that way. he repeatedly voted against sanctions legislation, even opposing those aimed at their iranian revolutionary guard corps which at the time was killing our troops in iraq. he has long argued against sanctions imposed by the united states absent an international jud
force or hezbollah. we have a fundamental interest in helping the states of that area govern stably. and in the real world as it is today, happily, our values are generally embraced. and so that kind of government requires not using f-16s against your people, not, you know, machine gunning them to death, allowing elections to proceed in an open and honest way. this is not simply a question of we think everyone should be like us. this is a question of whether you want states to be stable in the world or whether you wallet the world to be a chaotic -- you want the world to be a chaotic hotwed of opportunities for our -- hotbed of opportunities. >> okay. can we take another question? yes, sir. [inaudible] >> congressman jo bonner, wanted to ask about the intelligence aspect and the brand nomination, how those two things may relate whether or not, you know, shifting from looking at state-based collecting and analysis as opposed to just looking so much more at not state actors, terrorist groups, things like that. >> will you repeat the question and answer it? >> the question is about int
, to not have the iranian revolutionary guard designated as a terrorist organization or for hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization. and has accused people of being a jewish lobby. i think he's not a good candidate. is not a very distinguished candidates for secretary of defense. he is not of the stature of leon panetta or bob gates or dick cheney or any of the people will ever been secretary of defense over the years. many of them are democrats. there are people in the democratic party who served from the clinton defense department to the obama defense department with management experience, which will be awfully important as there are budget constraints. he said that we should not be threatening the use of force. i don't know why the president selected chuck hagel. maybe he likes him personally. he was a mentor to him when he was a senator. it is really a mistake. it's not bipartisan. i think t it think too late. there's a low chance that chuck hagel will be defeated. a huge majority of republicans will oppose him. the question is what democrats will do. many democrats ar
to sign a letter asking the european union to labor hezbollah -- to label hezbollah as a terror group, even though it is so designated by the united states state department. he is the same person who urged president bush to offer iran -- quote -- "direct, uncondition l, and comprehensive talks." close quote. he's the same person who called for establishing a united states diplomatic mission in tehran. he's the same person who dismissed -- quote -- "a military strike against iran as -- quote -- "not a viecialtion feasible, responsible option." he's the same person who suggested that the united states might be able to live with a nuclear iran. during his years in this chamber, senator hagel's opposition to iran's sanctions placed him in a very, very small minority. for example, only one other senator had joined him in voting against sanctions in 2001 and only one other senate banking committee member ginned hi joind him i voting against a different package. senator hagel has no credibility on perhaps the biggest foreign policy challenge facing the obama administration's second term and
Search Results 0 to 32 of about 33 (some duplicates have been removed)